Report - Government Plan 2020 - Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel Report - 11 November 2019

Government Plan Review 2020

Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel

11th November 2019

This report forms Section 7 of the Government Plan Review Panel's report on the Government Plan – S.R.13/2019

Contents

Section 7 – Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel's Government Plan Review ................ 4

1. Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel membership ............................................... 4
2. Chair's Foreword ........................................................................................................ 5
3. Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................ 6  Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 6  Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 9
4. Departmental Budgets and Efficiencies .................................................................... 10
5. Actions, Programs and Capital Projects Reviewed ................................................... 13
6. Reports on Specific Actions and Business Cases ..................................................... 16  Business Cases for Additional Revenue Expenditure ................................................... 16  Policy/Legislation Transformation and accompanying service delivery (8 Projects) .. 16  Children's Change Programme (9 Projects) ............................................................. 28  Independent Jersey Care Inquiry P108 (12 Projects) ............................................... 39  P82 Children's Services Early Intervention (made up of 3 projects) ......................... 57  Putting Children First – Involving and Engaging Children (made up of 4 projects) .... 72  Business Cases for Capital Expenditure ....................................................................... 78
7. Final Panel Comments ............................................................................................. 79
8. Witnesses and Evidence Gathered........................................................................... 80 Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................................... 81 Terms of Reference for Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel ................................... 81

Section 7 – Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel's Government Plan Review

1. Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel membership

The Panel comprised of the following States Members:

Deputy Robert Ward (Chair)   Deputy Kevin Pamplin (Vice-Chair)

Deputy Mike Higgins   Deputy Trevor Pointon

Deputy Louise Doublet   Senator Kristina Moore

The Deputy joined the Panel during October  The Senator resigned from the Panel in 2019 and was not involved in the early stages  October 2019 but was involved with the of the review.  early stages of the review.

2. Chair's Foreword

Scrutiny of this area of the Government Plan has required a detailed consideration of some significant areas of investment. At the same time, we are aware of the changing nature of children's services, and the pressures on social workers and wider areas of support for children. These provide an ongoing challenge for the Minister and the department.

In addition, the commitment of the Government of Jersey to put children first provides a context for the plan. The proof of the success of this priority will only come with time and with the realisation of projects covered in the plan.

Concerns around the nature and use of efficiencies remain and will do so until the commitment to front line services being unaffected is totally clear.

Deputy R. Ward

Chair, Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel

3. Findings and Recommendations Key Findings

FINDING 7.1

The Minister for Children and Housing has identified efficiencies within three areas  that  include  moving  residential  care  from  larger  to  smaller  homes, improving the intensive fostering service, and making better decisions about the permanent situation for a young person in care (permanence).

FINDING 7.2

Until such time as the outcomes of both legislative and service delivery for the Child in need project are available, it is not possible to give an assurance over the level of funding it has been allocated within the Government Plan.

FINDING 7.3

The Panel is concerned that without certainty over the proposed Legal Aid Guidelines, and how they link with the Family Law proposals, it is not possible to  identify  whether  access  to  support  under  the  new  legislation  would  be impacted.

FINDING 7.4

As  considerable  work  is  still  required  in  order  to  bring  forward  the recommendations arising from the Youth Justice Review, the Panel cannot comment on the proposed allocation of funding at this time.

FINDING 7.5

Whilst there is clarity over the apportionment of funding to meet the requirements of registration with the Care Commission, an ongoing inspection process has yet to be identified. The Panel therefore cannot provide assurance over the allocation of funding at this time

FINDING 7.6

The Panel supports the development of the proposed Child House' model, however, there is uncertainty over the timescale and siting of any future delivery space for the model.

FINDING 7.7

There has been investment in the Safeguarding Team and Advice Team within the Law Officers' Department to increase the support to Children's Services when dealing with a variety of legal issues. Further evidence of the effectiveness of  these  additional  posts  would  ensure  confidence  in  the  decision-making process.

FINDING 7.8

There is significant funding being applied for policy and service development within the Children's Change Programme, however, due to the considerable volume of work required the Panel cannot comment on whether this funding is appropriate at this stage.

FINDING 7.9

The evidence received points to a yearly increase in the need for the service. The Panel is concerned that the proposed funding level may not be sufficient in future years to keep pace with the need for the service.

FINDING 7.10

The Panel notes the need for the dedicated HR professional post in Children's Services, however, it requires further information about the outcomes being achieved through this funding prior to making any further comments.

FINDING 7.11

It is expected for the training offered by the Safeguarding Partnership Board to vary depending on the needs of staff. The Panel cannot, therefore, comment on the funding levels as need for training may increase or decrease and impact the funding requirement.

FINDING 7.12

The  Children's  Legislative  Transformation  Programme  is  intended  to  be implemented over three phases, the first of which has started in 2019. Given the length of time required, and breadth of legislation required, the Panel cannot give assurance over the level of funding applied to it at this stage.

FINDING 7.13

The Panel supports the work of Jersey Cares and any work that helps strengthen advocacy support for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, however, further details are required as to how this funding will be applied by Jersey Cares.

FINDING 7.14

The Panel is supportive of the development of a Children's Rights service; however, further details are required as to how the Children's Rights Assistants will be recruited to support this service. It is noted that a Children's Rights Officer is currently being recruited.

FINDING 7.15

As the posts of Practice Improvement Officers have yet to be recruited to, the Panel cannot, at this stage, comment on whether the proposed funding will meet the intended objectives of the posts.

FINDING 7.16

The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry raised concern within its two-year report of the role and operation of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).

FINDING 7.17

The funding allocated to the Citizen's Panel is to enable them to produce further reports and recommendations, but not to implement any recommendations made. The funding under the proposal is only for 2020, however, there is scope to extend this funding if seen fit.

FINDING 7.18

The Panel cannot comment on the proposed funding levels for the project to support  children  with  complex  needs  until  such  time  as  evidence  of  the outcomes of the project are available.

FINDING 7.19

The funding allocated to support the redesign of CAHMS relates to roles that will support children, young people and their families at an early stage. The roles are currently in the process of being identified. To that end, the Panel cannot comment on whether the funding level is appropriate at this stage.

FINDING 7.20

The proposal to create a new therapeutic unit for Looked After Children with complex needs is due to be developed over the course of 2020. To that end, the Panel cannot comment on whether the proposed funding level will meet the service requirements at this stage.

FINDING 7.21

The  Panel  is  fully  supportive  of  the  improved  Corporate  Parenting  offer contained within the Government Plan proposals. It does, however, note that legislation is required before any proposals can be fully implemented.

FINDING 7.22

The funding identified within the workforce development project (4.31) is to support the roll out of the Jersey Practice framework (Jersey Children First) for an additional 18 months. The Panel maintains its view that investment  in oversight roles should not overshadow investment in frontline services.

FINDING 7.23

The  development  of  the  case  management  system  (MOSAIC)  will  assist frontline services in carrying out their duties. It is noted that the system could be further developed to allow for business and performance reporting.

FINDING 7.24

The funding identified within business case 4.33 provides a role to support the recruitment of social workers and co-ordinating practical arrangements (such as onboarding) and attend recruitment fairs. The Panel again highlights its view that investment in frontline services is required more so than back office roles.

FINDING 7.25

The Panel supports the redress scheme, however, as there is no certainty over the number and type of applications that will be made to the scheme, it cannot be certain at this stage whether the funding identified is appropriate.

FINDING 7.26

The Panel is highly supportive of the need to introduce a Public Services Ombudsman service. Until such time as the policy and accompanying legislation is  developed, the  Panel  cannot comment  on the  proposed  expenditure  at present.

FINDING 7.27

Capital improvements to Children's Residential Homes will be prioritised to meet set objectives in order to comply with the Discrimination Law, safeguarding and Regulation of Care requirements. At present there is no clarity over how funding will be apportioned between these improvements.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 7.1

The Minister for Children and Housing should review the number of clients accessing the Nursery Special Needs Service on a quarterly basis in order to identify whether the proposed part-time posts are sufficient to meet the actual need.

RECOMMENDATION 7.2

The Minister for Children and Housing should provide further details to the Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel about the intended use of the funding for the advocacy worker by Jersey Cares. This should be provided by end of Q4 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 7.3

The Minister for Children and Housing should update the Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel on the recruitment of the Children's Rights Officer and Children's Rights Assistant posts by the end of Q4 2020 and then subsequently at the end of every quarter until the posts are filled.

RECOMMENDATION 7.4

Once the Practice Improvement Officers are in post, the Minister for Children and Housing should provide initial quarterly updates which detail the impact and outcomes of the posts within Children's Services.

RECOMMENDATION 7.5

The Minister for Children and Housing should review the operation of the Multi- Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and in doing so specifically address the concerns raised by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry about the operation of the service in its two-year report. This should be completed by the end of Q3 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 7.6

The Minister for Children and Housing should ensure that the future of the Citizen's Panel is clarified by the end of Q3 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 7.7

Further to the Review Panel's recommendation within its most recent update report, the Minister for Children and Housing should fast track legislation that defines the role of Corporate Parent in Jersey, to be completed by the end of Q4 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 7.8

The Minister for Children and Housing (as chair of the Children's Services Improvement Board) should ensure that the MOSAIC system is being utilised to enable best practice in record keeping and consistent reporting prior to any additional business and performance reporting facilities being introduced. This in turn should enable more effective data to be produced.

4. Departmental Budgets and Efficiencies

The Panel notes from the Government Plan, that the following Departmental budget will be in place for 2020 for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES):

The 2020 resources allocated to the Minister for Children and Housing is as follows[2]:

The Minister for Children and Housing holds the following budget within the various departments for 2020:

The Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Housing on the allocated budget he held for delivery of the services under his remit within 2019:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

What base budget do you hold responsibility for? We are just trying to get some focus on what budgets you hold.

The Minister for Children and Housing:

This year? Okay, so we have asked to get a bigger, full list because this is obviously been a transition year and stuff has moved around, but I have got just short of £22 million.[4]

• It is noted that, at present, the Minister has some functions delegated from other Ministerial  portfolios (i.e.  Health  and  Community  Services)  which  are due  to  be amended so that they fall entirely within the remit of the Minister for Children and Housing. It was then confirmed that the budget for 2020 would increase to £27.5 million.[5]

• In respect of efficiencies, the Panel notes that the Department for Children, Young people, Education and Skills intends to make £3.5 million worth of efficiencies, of which £1.78 million relate to the remit of the Minister for Education. The Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Housing on how the proposed efficiencies would be found from within services under his remit and received a high-level response as to where they were expected to be found:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:  

At this stage the principal area under this Minister's portfolio is in the sufficiency strategy where we are looking to continue the work to reprovide residential care from larger to smaller homes, introducing an intensive fostering service, which will reduce our reliance therefore on off-Island placements, but will also reduce our reliance on expensive in-Island care and support for young people as well. A third dimension of that will be to have a much clearer and stronger approach to what we would call permanence, which is about making decisions sooner and better around those children for whom fostering as a long-term proposition and/or adoption are decisions that could be taken. The principal area of being more efficient is because we can, in the simplest of terms, reduce our reliance on expensive off-Island provision and, to some extent, reduce our high-level costs in-Island as well.[6]

• The Panel questioned whether the efficiency programme would reach a point whereby no further savings would be required to be made. The Director General of CYPES provided the following view on the process going forward:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:  

My experience in other jurisdictions, Chair, is that this process of dealing with the 3 "Es" is a continual process. I do not think I would ever suggest that it is inexorable. There comes a point where certain levels of investment are always required for the very best services to be effective. If you fall below that then first of all you are giving your Minister poor advice, but more importantly you are doing an injustice to children. I think there is some way to go with the efficiency programme because it has not been applied systematically over years yet in the Government.[7]

• The Panel also questioned the notion that departments would be asked to make percentage cuts to the services they offered. It was given the following response from the Minister for Children and Housing:

The Minister for Children and Housing:

As I said, my budget is due to go up every year and I consider it politically, and frankly morally, intolerable to accept any cuts to frontline services in this area because of where we are coming from. Our background of decades of failure in this means that this must be an area of top priority. That view among my colleagues is known full well and I will not tolerate it.[8]

• The Panel notes the efficiencies are broadly broken down into the areas discussed during the hearing. However, further details as to how they will be fully rolled out are required before any assurances about the impact on frontline services can be made. In light of the commitment to put children first, the Panel would express its view that no cuts should be made to frontline services as a result of the efficiencies programme.  

FINDING 7.1

The Minister for Children and Housing has identified efficiencies within three areas that include moving residential care from larger to smaller homes, improving the intensive fostering service, and making better decisions about the permanent situation for a young person in care (permanence).  

5. Actions, Programs and Capital Projects Reviewed

6. Reports on Specific Actions and Business Cases

Business Cases for Additional Revenue Expenditure

• This section relates to the additional revenue expenditure projects within R.91/2019 that the Panel has reviewed.

Policy/Legislation Transformation and accompanying service delivery (8 Projects)

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Children in Need.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The threshold for intervention is too high in comparison with other jurisdictions. Following the report of The Care Inquiry Panel there is a need for significant policy and legislative development and creation of a child in need' policy. Service delivery is to change in advance of law change with the implementation of Right Help, Right Time' early intervention, investment in services to support children's mental health and emotional wellbeing and enhancing staffing to progress early help and appropriate training.

Panel Analysis

• The Review Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Housing on the proposed timescale for the legislation described within this project to be brought forward:  

The Minister for Children and Housing:

The timescale is to this involves updating our children's law and it really does need updating. There are lots of things that need to be done to it. For this project we are looking to consult the end of this year, draft the law during 2020 and lodge it in the second half of next year.[9]

• It was confirmed that the particular piece of legislation that would require amending is the Children's (Jersey) Law 2002.[10] There was a degree of uncertainty from within the business case provided in R.91/2019 as to whether the funding attributed to this project was in order to fund the development of the legislation to underpin this service, or to fund the delivery of it. The Panel questioned this at a public hearing:

Deputy R.J. Ward

It just seems a lot of money for legislation. For example, there is £206,000 on the care leaver's offer, which seems a small amount of money. That legislation is underpinning everything.

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning:  The funding under 1.1 is for the implementation. It is for that service delivery, the operational model that Mark has been talking about. You are absolutely right, that would be enormous amount of money for the legislation development. It is not for that. There is money elsewhere for the, far smaller, policy and legislation teams involved in it.[11]

• It was further explained by the Director General for CYPES that any supporting legislation would not be designed to specify services but would in fact be used to specify the entitlement that a child in need would receive.[12] The Director General further explained that the design work for the project was ongoing alongside initiatives that sit with Customer and Local Service (CLS) and Health and Community Services (HCS).[13] The Minister for Children and Housing confirmed that the Children's Services Improvement Board would track the success of the projects.[14]

• The Panel notes that this project specifies three separate areas of priority, namely, Right Help, Right Time, mental health support and the Jersey Practice Framework, although there was no distinction as to how the funding would be allocated between these three strands. The Panel questioned this further at its public hearing with the Minister for Children and Housing:

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning:

So, the way that the funding has been modelled for the plan does not set that out because it needs to be a demand-led model. We will not know until we get in there, is the honest answer. We will have to report back as it happens but that is the anticipated mix.[15]

• The Panel fully supports the need for both the legislative changes and service delivery, however, it is not possible at this stage to say with any certainty that the level of funding is appropriate without first seeing outcomes arising from the change to service delivery. For that reason, the Panel has highlighted this project as amber' at this stage.

FINDING 7.2

Until such time as the outcomes of both legislative and service delivery for the Child in need project are available, it is not possible to give an assurance over the level of funding that has been allocated within the Government Plan.  

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Care Leavers.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Policy and law changes will provide Ministerial duties and powers for care leavers up to age 25 to enable them to move from care towards independence. Social Security entitlements can be extended to care leavers.

Panel Analysis

• Given the heading of this particular section (Policy and Legislation Delivery), the Panel again  questioned  whether  the  funding  requested  was  for  legislative  and  policy development or implementation. It was confirmed that the £824,000 over the four years was intended to fund service delivery.[16]

• The Panel questioned the timescale for the offer for care leavers to be brought forward and received the following information:  

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

The offer is already in existence in outline. It has been put to the Corporate Parenting Board and has received in principle support. So, what we are now doing, therefore, is looking at how to connect existing and potential new funding with what is set out in that draft offer and bring back not just the Corporate Parenting Board but particularly to that board how the money and the offer will work. So that work is literally underway as well.[17]

• Within the business case in R.91/2019, it states that the purpose of this project is to offer a generous' level of support for care leavers. The Panel questioned exactly what this meant:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

I think we have used the word "generous" deliberately as in not just like we plucked a word out and off we went and wrote it down because Jersey is in a fantastic position not to have to copy other jurisdictions except where they have something that is enviable. Therefore, what we are signalling here is that some of ... maybe we should have given more thought to the word "generous". What we are saying is, is this is going to be the best kind of offer that you can have as a care leaver, so "generous" perhaps implies some other connotation, does it not? But this really means that it is going to be at least as generous as, and in some instances better than other offers you would find in jurisdictions that you might look to as an example.[18]

• It was further explained that the intention of the funding was to provide care leavers with the same level of support as one would normally expect from a supportive and generous parent once they had reached the age of 18.[19]

• The Panel is fully supportive of this initiative, especially given the historic failings in this area.  

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of Family Law.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• This is funding to support additional workload for the Mediation Service whilst the law transitions to no fault' divorce in anticipation of an increased requirement to attempt a mediated settlement before reverting to the Courts.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received a briefing on the proposed changes within this business case in March 2019. It was noted at the time that the public consultation had concluded, and further work would be undertaken in order to bring forward the preferred policy position in legislation. The Panel is generally supportive of the need to bring forward this change in policy.  

• The Panel did question whether any of this work would link in with the proposed legal aid scheme that would be brought forward for approval by the Chief Minister from the Legal Aid Guidelines Committee (LAGC). It was noted that, whilst there was some crossover, any link would be subject to the scheme as agreed by the Chief Minister on advice of the LAGC.[20]

• Until the Legal Aid Scheme is approved, there is a lack of clarity over how this will impact access under the proposed legislation. For that reason, the Panel has rated the project as amber' at this stage.  

FINDING 7.3

The  Panel  is  concerned  that  without  certainty  over  the  proposed  Legal  Aid Guidelines, and how they link with the Family Law proposals, it is not possible to identify whether access to support under the new legislation would be impacted.  

to responding to those  affected by domestic abuse

• Progress policy and legislative change to underpin long-term reform, including:

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of Youth Justice.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Following the findings of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry and the Youth Justice Review, this is allocation for three policy officers over a fixed term to develop a criminal justice policy that puts children first and development of a welfare orientated multi- agency youth justice strategy.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned the funding increase in 2021 as outlined above. It was informed that the bid is primarily for additional time-limited staff resources to carry out the necessary data gathering, research, policy development work and implementation and 2021 is the only year in which all staff are engaged in this process.[21]

• It was also explained that the timescale for development of a youth and adult criminal justice policy was scheduled for the end of 2021.[22] The Panel questioned whether this project would fit in with the review of the Probation and Aftercare Service (JPACS). It was explained that whilst the Youth Justice Review pre-dated the review of JPACS, any advances in practice arising from the review would be reflected in the policy development.[23]

• The Panel cannot comment on whether the funding identified is sufficient to meet the objectives  with  any  certainty  at  this  time  as  considerable  work  will  need  to  be undertaken to bring forward the changes arising from the Review. For that reason, it has rated the project as Amber' at this stage.

FINDING 7.4

As  considerable  work  is  still  required  in  order  to  bring  forward  the recommendations  arising  from  the  Youth  Justice  Review,  the  Panel  cannot comment on the proposed allocation of funding at this time.  

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of Regulation and Inspection.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The Care Commission requires the Children's Services to ensure services are fit for purpose. The funding is to support the fitness and qualification of staff, staff ratios, buildings that are fit for purpose. The funding is to cover estimated Government costs from 2021 and the cost of further inspection by Ofsted in 2020.

Panel Analysis

• The Review Panel noted within the summary business case in R.91/2019, reference is made for this funding to help cover the required costs for registration under the Care Commission. The Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Housing on what proportion of the funding would be assigned to meet this requirement:

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning: The cost that is set out, just to explain that the cost in 2020 is to resource the return of Ofsted's visits for the children's social work services; date to be determined, which is soon, I hope. The rest of it is to cover those fees that government services will incur and will pay the Care Commission. The rest of that funding does cover that.[24]

• The Panel notes that the funding does account for an Ofsted inspection to take place in 2020. It questioned whether it was the intention to hold these inspections on an annual basis:

The Deputy of St. John :

Is it intended for there to be an Ofsted inspection on an annual basis?

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills: The answer is I do not know but I mean that in a positive sense because the way this has commenced is by near annual inspection although the interval between the first and the second is being nearer 15 or 16 months than a year. What is intended here is to make sure that there is sufficient resource for appropriate inspection activity to take place and there is, pending a discussion that the Care Commission, the department and some others, I suspect, are expecting to have around, what does the model of inspection need to look like going forwards to best drive improvement?[25]

• It also questioned whether the best way forward for inspecting services would be through smaller, regular inspections as opposed to full-scale inspections. It was explained that it was intended for them to be undertaken both at the right time and in the right areas they are seen as supportive.[26]

• The Panel noted in the accompanying business case in R.91/2019, reference is made to fitness of manager'. The Panel questioned exactly what this meant and received the following information:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

No, so I will give you perhaps an example. We are going through a process of all of our children's, as well as adults, residential provision being regulated. I need to be designated as fit to have oversight of those children's facilities. So fitness in that respect means I have got a clean D.B.S. (Disclosure and Barring Service). I have got references that are positive. I have not got interruptions in my career that you cannot account for. That is what "fitness to manage" means in this context.[27]

• Considering the ongoing work required to identify the best inspection process for the Island, the Panel would rate this project as amber' until such time as that work is completed.

FINDING 7.5

Whilst there is clarity over the apportionment of funding to meet the requirements of registration with the Care Commission, an ongoing inspection process has yet to be identified. The Panel therefore cannot provide assurance over the allocation of funding at this time

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of the Safeguarding Partnership Board (SPB).

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• A  2018  independent  review  has  identified  areas  for  development  within  the Safeguarding Partnership Board (SPB). The funding is to bring forward and entrench the responsibilities of the SPB and increase training and public awareness.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received a submission from the Safeguarding Partnership Board (SPB) as to the scope of what would be introduced as a result of this additional funding. The Panel were informed that the funding related to a project which sought to implement the findings and recommendations arising from an independent review of the SPB in 2018.[28] It was explained that there were five main areas associated with the project which are as follows:

• Developing a culture of learning including enhanced access to training
• Advice and guidance
• Raising the profile and awareness of safeguarding
• Developing potential Pan Island Safeguarding Partnership arrangements
• Strengthening assurance and accountability[29]

• It was confirmed by the Minister for Children and Housing in response to a Panel question that the funding would be utilised for the purposes as set out by the SPB:

The monies provided via the Government Plan (£180k per year 2020 – 2023) will enable  the  Safeguarding  Partnership  Boards  (SPB)  to:  deliver  an  enhanced training and advice service; increase public awareness of safeguarding issues and strengthen assurance and accountability in accordance with the 2018 independent review of the Board (as published on gov.je).[30]

• The Panel also questioned the Minister for Children and Housing on the proposed timeline to bring forward the legislation to underpin the work of the SPB:

This  is  scheduled  for  Phase  2  of  the  Children's  Legislation  Transformation Programme. It is therefore anticipated that work on scoping the legislation will start in late 2020, with proposed legislation being brought forward in 2021.[31]

• The Panel understands the requirement for the funding and is satisfied with the evidence it has received in support. It will therefore be supporting it.

Summary Report

The Department for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) has requested the following funds in respect of the Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC):

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The funding is to enable development of the SARC into a Child's House Model within Dewberry House. This will provide medical investigative and emotional support in one place, early support after the trauma of abuse, an increase in the length of time support is provided and the ability to gather more effective evidence to progress investigations and court cases.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel explored the proposed timescale for bringing forward the Child's House Model:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

I think I would probably have to come back to you about that, but it is definitely contingent upon the Government Plan approving this particular investment. I am sorry I do not know the specific answer today, but I would say, in general terms, it will be from the beginning of 2020 because this is about investment that delivers additionality.[32]

• It is noted that this particular investment is beholden to the approval of the Government Plan. The Panel asked why the funding increased between 2020 and 2021 and it was confirmed that this would be in response to the scaling up of the project and its delivery, after which it would plateau.[33]

• The Panel questioned whether children and young people would be involved in the design of the rooms within the house, in order to give a homely feel to the surroundings. It was confirmed that every step was taken to achieve this, notwithstanding the requirement that some rooms needed to meet forensic standards to assist in police investigations.[34] The Minister for Children and Housing explained that relocation from the current site was a matter for consideration when seeking to integrate several services in to one space.[35]

• The Panel fully supports the need for this Child House' model, however, given the uncertainty over the timescale and siting of the house it has given it an amber' rating at this stage.

FINDING 7.6

The  Panel  supports  the  development  of  the  proposed  Child  House'  model, however, there is uncertainty over the timescale and siting of any future delivery space for the model.  

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Domestic Abuse Strategy.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• There is a high incidence of domestic abuse in Jersey, which impacts upon children of those families. An increase in the Independent Domestic Violence Advisers posts is proposed across different services such as the emergency department, the youth service and the multi-agency safeguarding hub to ensure quick contact and support for victims of abuse.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel established that the purpose of this funding is the expand the number of Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA's) from two to four which will be full time equivalent posts.[36] It was also explained that the implementation of the posts would be staggered.[37]

• The Panel questioned whether the four posts would be entirely dedicated to dealing with domestic abuse in the Island and noted the roles were spread throughout the Government:

Acting Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police:

As is absolutely the plan there, they are to support those in crisis and help bring forward victims of domestic abuse, to help with a whole host of opportunities, be it safeguarding through to prosecution and they are spread across the Government of Jersey departments in that sense.[38]

• Furthermore, the Acting Deputy Chief Officer confirmed the outcomes that would be expected as a result of the increase in the number of roles:

Acting Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police:  

Yes, so this is a crime area that we feel pretty strongly is underreported in Jersey and the opportunity of deploying and introducing I.D.V.A.s (Independent Domestic Violence Advisors) to work alongside those people who are suffering in that sense can only help increase the opportunity to report and therefore likelihood of getting a conviction. It is very much in that support role space. I am not frightened of this, there may be an increase in the reporting of domestic violence as a result.[39]

• It is noted that an increase in the reporting of instances of domestic violence could be seen as a measure of success for the project. The Panel also questioned whether any legislation was intended to be brought forward in order to deal with the issues of domestic violence. The Minister for Home Affairs confirmed that this work would be commenced as part of the policy pipeline', however, there were other competing priorities that would need to be balanced amongst this work.[40] The Panel notes that this work forms part of commencement phase three of the Children's Legislative Transformation Programme.[41]

• The Panel is satisfied with the proposed additional roles and also notes further legislative development is in train around domestic violence.  It will therefore be supporting this project.  

Children's Change Programme (9 Projects)

It is noted that the projects contained within this section are all currently taking place, however, they have been funded from contingency over the previous Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The requests are therefore designed to make these posts and projects permanent across the Government Plan cycle.

Summary Report

Non-Ministerial Departments (Law Officers' Department and Legislative Drafting Office) have requested the following funds in respect of increase capacity family/children's section.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The funding is to increase capacity in posts in the Family / Children's Services function within the Law Officers' Department and Legislative Drafting Office.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel noted that the business case contained within R.91/2019 appeared to be incomplete and offered very little information as to what exactly was being requested. This was acknowledged by the Minister for Children and Housing at a public hearing and the Group Director for Policy confirmed the exact need for this funding:  

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning:

The costs for policy and legislation development associated with all this are in 3 places in here; in 2.1, 2.4 and 3.6. In 2.1, the one that you are asking about, that refers to additional capacity and continuation of additional capacity that has already gone into the Law Officers' Department and the Law Drafters' Office to ensure that the legislation can be delivered but also my understanding is some additional law officer capacity for casework.[42]

• The Panel also received further information during factual accuracy checking from the Law Officers' Department (LOD) which explained the funding related to additional

posts within the Safeguarding Team and Advice Team. It was explained that the increase in the Safeguarding Team would achieve the following outcomes:

The funding is required to continue to provide high quality legal advice to the Children's Service on a range of challenging and time sensitive issues including emergency protection orders, care orders, secure accommodation orders and adoption orders. The funding has meant that more of the court hearings are dealt with in house, which is of benefit to the Children's Service. The posts will enable the Safeguarding Team to provide timely advice and support to the Children's  Service  during  its  Improvement  Programme  and  beyond.  This includes  contribution  to  the  Children's  Service  Strategic  and  Operational Improvement Boards and delivery of training to social workers in relation to the legal powers and duties they perform in the name of the Minister for Children & Housing. The outcome of this work will help improve the delivery of services to vulnerable children and their families. The funding also enables a Legal Adviser to sit on the Children's Legislation Transformation Board to provide practitioner input into the development of new social policy and legislation in relation to children.[43]

• It was also explained that the funding to support the Advice Team would assist the increased workload arising from the Children's Legislative Transformation Programme.

• Whilst it understands the need for the posts (to meet the significant increase in legislative  development  and  advice  on  safeguarding  matters),  it  would  raise  its disappointment with the way the business case has been presented. For that reason, it has rated the project as amber' until it has seen ongoing evidence of the positive impact the additional posts have had on the work of the service.

FINDING 7.7

There has been investment in the Safeguarding Team and Advice Team within the Law Officers' Department to increase the support to Children's Services when dealing with a variety of legal issues. Further evidence of the effectiveness of these additional posts would ensure confidence in the decision-making process.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Baby Steps.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• This is to fund a Perinatal parent education programme which was run for a 4-year period by NSPCC as a targeted programme and is now offered universally by FNHC. Other antenatal programmes previously in place have stopped.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel received a significant submission from Family Nursing and Home Care (FNHC) which set out the background of the programme, its governance arrangements, details of the programme, pathways and data relevant to the programme.[44] The Panel would like to express its thanks to FNHC for providing such an in-depth insight in to the work of the programme.

• The Panel questioned why other antenatal programmes had ceased as a result of the Baby Steps programme. The Minister for Children and Housing confirmed the reason in writing:

The extension of the Baby Steps programme as a universal offer for all expectant parents meets the need that was previously met by the three-session antenatal run by the Community Midwifery Service.[45]

• It was also noted that due to the evidence-based nature of the programme (which had been developed in collaboration with the NSPCC) it provided significant advantages over the existing programmes that it eventually replaced.[46] The programme is now available to all expecting parents and is introduced by the Midwives at the 12-week booking appointment and revisited at 16 – 18-week contact.[47]

• The Panel was interested to know the role that Midwives played in this programme and was given the following information:  

Two part-time midwives are seconded to Family Nursing and Home Care to support the delivery of the programme, working alongside Health Visitors and Baby Steps Facilitators. The content of the programme supports the work of Midwives in the preparation of expectant mothers and partners/support for birth.[48]

• Furthermore, the programme is linked to other services provided by FNHC including the Community Health Visitor Service and also assists in early identification of expectant mothers who may benefit from a higher level of support, including through the Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home Visiting Programme.[49]

• The Panel is fully supportive of the programme and is satisfied with the detailed evidence received in respect of it. It will therefore be supporting the project.  

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Jersey Youth Service Growth.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• There are currently gaps in the service and the funding is to increase work with young carers, LGBTQ young people, early help and corporate parenting and to increase support to the Youth Enquiry Service (YES) projects providing information, advice and counselling.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned how the funding identified for these projects was different to that set out in project 2.6 (Maintenance of Care Inquiry funding Youth Service Cat 1) on page 12 of R.91/2019. It received the following clarification:  

2.6 is the current funds and delivery that is taking place and 2.3 is to increase funding for the LGBT and Young Carers posts from half-time to full-time, create a new post to support the Youth Service capacity to support the Early Help and preventative work it carries out with some of the Islands most vulnerable young people and engage them in relevant programmes and also to increase support available from the Youth Enquiry Service and reduce any waiting times for counselling. Currently the Youth Service is a projects worker short as they have used the funds from this post on a temporary basis to back fill to support the LGBTQ and Young Carers work.[50]

• Further details were also given as to how the funding would be allocated between the posts identified.[51] The Panel is satisfied in the rationale and need for the additional funding for these posts and will therefore be supporting the bid.

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of the Children's Change Programme.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The funding is to continue the officer capacity to implement the changes detailed in the Independent Jersey Care Enquiry to support the Minister in strategic planning and indirect incorporation of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned how many posts would be maintained as a result of this funding and what the focus would be for the roles. It received the following information in response:

The sum referred to in 2.4 Children's Change Programme concerns continuation funding for two posts that were initially created in 2016 in response to the IJCI report. These two posts form the core of the Children's Policy Team. Over the Government Plan period, tasks will include – as stated in R.91/2019 – strategic planning of the children's policy agenda, taking forward incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and progressing the children's agenda – this latter task including ongoing policy support to the Minister for Children.[52]

• The  Panel  is  aware  that  there  is  a  significant  amount  of  policy  and  legislative development required and programmed over the course of the Government Plan. This

is vital to ensuring the issues of the past are firmly resolved. The Panel notes that there is additional funding within project 3.6 (p.16 R.91/2019) in order to help deliver this programme.[53] At this stage, however, the Panel cannot say with any certainty that the funding identified is sufficient. It has therefore marked the project as amber'.

FINDING 7.8

There is significant funding being applied for policy and service development within the Children's Change Programme, however, due to the considerable volume of work required the Panel cannot comment on whether this funding is appropriate at this stage.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Family Support Workers.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• To support the creation of a pilot Family Support Work Team to implement the early help' approach using practitioners from different agencies working together in schools, early  years'  environments,  Family  Nursing  and  Home  Care,  Education  Support Services, the Youth Service and in the voluntary and community sector.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned the number of roles that were created by this funding and were informed that it related to 6 roles (3 fulltime family support workers and 3 term time family support workers (2 at 30 hours and 1 at 37 hours).[54] It also questioned what the anticipated  caseload  was  for  each  of  these  roles  and  received  the  following information:

(Family Support Worker's) tend to work with between 8-12 families at any one time, plus delivery of Triple P groups and Parent Consultation (Pop In) sessions at schools and early years settings. The team worked with 112 new families in the academic year 2018/19

During the same time period they were the lead worker for 58 children and young people (where a child/ family needs multi agency support a lead worker is identified to co-ordinate support, make sure the family don't have to repeat lots of information and have a clear plan in place.[55]

• The Panel is satisfied with the need for the roles and current funding requirement, and will therefore be supporting the project.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Maintenance of Care Enquiry funding Youth Service Cat.1.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• To set up and support LGBTQ Youth Jersey, Young Carers project (Mytime), Missing young person and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) project, Youth Enquiry Service (YES) Counsellor. This is in accordance with a request to review services for today's children and young people where there are gaps in current services for vulnerable young people.

Panel Analysis

• Noting the information provided to it for project 2.3 above (and accepting that the funding identified in this business case relates to roles currently funded through contingencies), the Panel requested a breakdown of the funding allocated to various projects listed in the business plan and received the following information:

LGBT AYW £25,000

Young Carer AYW £25,000 YES Counsellor £60,000 Projects/CIST SYW £60,000 Total £170,000[56]

• The Panel will be supporting the additional funding for the continuation of this important work.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Youth Enquiry Service (YES) and Projects Cat. 2.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Funding is to provide additional staff for the Youth Enquiry Service (YES) and for the development of additional projects to deliver the universal plus/preventative work with children and young people – projects already delivered include sessions at schools on Consent, Equality and Diversity and Alcohol awareness and a diet and nutrition workshop.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel reviewed the outline business case in R.91/2019 and is generally supportive of the proposed additional funding. It did, however, question how the funding would be allocated between the various posts proposed and received the following information:

Original budget allocation not actual spend amounts

YES AYW £45,000 Projects/CIST AYW £50,000 Total £95,000[57]

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Nursery Special Needs.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• To fund and develop an outreach service for schools and families with children with special needs to support inclusion in mainstream education, rather than Mont-a-l'Abbe or other specialist settings. To fund an Early Intervention Family Support for children age 0-5. This supports the early help' approach and ensures multi-agency support in school and community.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel requested the job description for the role to better understand the range of actions that it would be undertaking. It is noted that this funding relates to 0.4 FTE which is split across two areas. An Outreach Service from Bel Royal School termed the Learning Inclusion Team' (LIT) which will be able to offer outreach in other schools and turning a term time Portage worker role in to a full-time role to assist children with the most complex needs.[58]

• The Panel questioned how the one 0.8FTE and one 0.4FTE would undertake the large range of actions identified in the business case. It was given the following information by the Minister for Children and Housing:

Requests for outreach support can be made in respect of children and young people with complex learning needs who may be viewed as requiring support above ordinarily available support. This may include pupils with for example;

• moderate or severe learning difficulties who are likely to have severe developmental delay, impaired ability to communicate and interact with the environment, and regressive conditions in some instances;

• severe and long term sensory and/or physical difficulties who have restricted mobility which require an adapted educational environment and specialist equipment and where staff who support them require moving and handling training;

Requests for portage can be made from any agency for children age 0 – 5. Portage runs as an outreach service for parents and children at home for pre- statutory school children with additional needs. The Portage team also run regular Stay and Play' groups for pre-school children and their parents.[59]

• The Panel also received a list of expected outcomes from the roles, which for the LIT included  assistance  with  assessment  and  moderation  of  pupil's  attainment levels/curriculum access and needs, advice on interventions and bespoke training to address particular needs.[60] Outcomes for the Portage worker post included delivery of portage home visiting service, supporting planning for change and transitions and liaison with other early year's professionals.[61] The Panel was also provided with figures to evidence the increased need for the service over the past 3 years:

62

• The Panel also received the following information in respect of the estimated need for the services (and number of referrals) and also the number of hours of support offered from these roles:

There were 10 Request for Involvements of the LIT service from mainstream schools. These cases require continued regular involvement over the year.

There were 53 new referrals for Portage last academic year. This was in addition to the existing caseload from the previous year.

Portage delivered 650 hours of home visits and 120 hours of stay and play groups throughout the year.

The LIT provides hours relevant to the specific need. In some cases, this is monthly visits.63

• The Panel notes the need for the service, however, the increasing numbers accessing the schemes highlights potential concern over how they are resourced. Should this continue to increase at the rate highlighted above the Panel would raise concern that additional funding will be required. For that reason, the Panel has rated this project as amber' at this stage.  

FINDING 7.9

The evidence received points to a yearly increase in the need for the service. The Panel is concerned that the proposed funding level may not be sufficient in future years to keep pace with the need for the service.

RECOMMENDATION 7.1

The Minister for  Children and Housing should  review the number of clients accessing the Nursery Special Needs Service on a quarterly basis in order to identify whether the proposed part-time posts are sufficient to meet the actual need.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of an Increase Resource in Public Protection Unit.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• The funding is to continue to employ 2 Detectives already in post within the Police Public Protection Unit to respond to child abuse investigations and management of offenders.

Panel Analysis

• The  Panel  has  reviewed  the  business  case  in  R.91/2019  and  supporting documentation received and is supportive of the proposals.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry P108 (12 Projects)

Summary Report

The Department for Health and Community Services (HCS) has requested the following funds in respect of the Parent/ Infant/ Psycotherapy Service.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• To continue with the specialist Parent / Infant Psychotherapy Service for vulnerable infants/young children and their parents/carers to contribute towards reducing the number of children entering the child protection system and prevent trans-generational breakdown of family relationships and the long-term effects of poor early emotional, social and cognitive development.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel notes that the current service is being piloted and the funding comprises a highly specialised psychotherapist who is able to offer therapeutic work to support the relationships of infants with their parents or carers.[62]

• The Panel questioned how this service was targeted and need identified amongst children and their families. It received the following information in response:

Approximately 1000 babies are born in Jersey each year and we anticipate that the  post  holder  will  be  working  with  those  children  whose  families  are presenting with the highest level of need. It is well evidenced that mothers with young children are vulnerable to developing a range of mental health difficulties such  as  post-natal  depression  or  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  and  this impacts upon the parent's ability to develop their relationship with their child.[63]

• It was further explained that the post holder works in collaboration with health visitors and the Bridge to ensure parents who are most at need can access the service.[64] It was also confirmed that the post holder has capacity to work with 20 families at a time.[65] The Panel is supportive of the project.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Sustainable Workforce: Accredited training (Children's Social Work).

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• To support post graduate accredited professional training in systematic practice to sustain improved recruitment and retention.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Housing about the details of the accredited training that staff would be undertaking and received the following information from the Director General for CYPES:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

As you can see it is a rather modest sum, so up to the early part of this year we had made a commitment to invest in systemic training for social workers. What this figure represents is, broadly speaking, the cost of that initial investment in systemic training, which we wanted to sustain through the duration of the plan either to roll out further opportunities for social workers to go on that programme and/or other relevant accredited training relating to the practice model of social work that we are developing. So, it is a relatively ... sorry, I am just about to say something that might sound patronising. I do not mean that all. It is a relatively modest sum designed to reflect the fact that we started something. We might want to continue it, but we also might want to evolve it. But it is basically about giving social workers access and particularly access to learning with social workers from other jurisdictions on training that can be accredited and supports our practice model.[66]

• Delivery of this training will be through the Tavistock Centre in London and it was also confirmed that at the end of the training, staff would receive an Institute of Learning and Management equivalent qualification in systemic practice.[67]

• The Panel questioned whether this training linked to the on-island systemic practice course offered by Jersey Association for Family Therapy. It was confirmed that this training was designed to be complementary rather than competitive and was intended to begin dealing with previously poor investment in social work training.[68]

• It was noted by the Panel that the amount of funding required is relatively small for tackling a previous lack of investment. The Director General, however, confirmed that work was ongoing to create further learning development opportunities for social workers:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

No, and it is a small part of what we need to build up. I am less concerned about  the money  although  the  money  will  be  very  welcome.  I  am more concerned that one of the jobs I need to do is make sure that there is a good learning and development offer for social workers and other allied professionals like family support workers because that has been part of our retention problem here. So even when we landed good staff sometimes we do not hold on to them because there is not a framework of learning and development that they can see. That is slowly coming into place. This would be an element of it.[69]

• The Panel recognises the need for significant investment in training and development opportunities for social workers, however, it also notes that this particular project is one small part of that development. It is therefore supportive of this project and will continue to monitor the development of other opportunities.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Sustainable Workforce: HR professional with admin support (Children's Social Work).

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• In response to the recommendation of the Care Inquiry this is to retain a dedicated HR Officer who is in post and had a positive impact on the service.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel reviewed the business case in R.91/2019 and sought further clarity over the details of the post and role described. It was explained that this related to the costs of a dedicated HR officer within Children's Services focussing on the on-boarding and recruitment of social workers.[70] It was also noted that the role sat within People Services and was line managed through the central HR team yet was stationed within the same building as Children's Services.[71]

• The Panel questioned whether it was likely for the role to be drawn in to other areas of the HR function across the States. The Director General for CYPES confirmed that the role formed part of a hub and spoke' approach to HR management:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

I guess the language at this end of the table is hub and spoke, so this role is spoked out to the service but the professional supervision, because this person is a qualified people service professional, will be through a line manager who is from People Services, which is the H.R. business partner to the department. So, there is good connection, so while the professional locus for People Services is corporate, sits at the centre, the people who do the work then get spoked out to the departments.[72]

• The Panel raised concern over the term robust management' within the business plan. It  was  felt  that  given  the  historic  issues  raised  in  the  HR  lounge  bullying  and harassment report this could give the wrong impression to staff about how they would personally be dealt with. The Director General explained the reasoning for the use of the term:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

We  need  to  make  sure  that,  because  there  have  been  historically,  and sometimes still contemporaneously, issues about the way people arrive and the way that they are expected to be onboarded and therefore behave and operate, we have not been consistent sometimes in managing those issues. Quite literally we have not been consistent, so sometimes complaints and occasionally grievances will arise because of that differential treatment. This is about, again, it is the language I guess that you are picking up here, but this is about being consistent. I think "robust" for me in this sense just means being clear and firm and following policy.[73]

• The Panel notes that need for this role in order to deal with historic issues. It does, however, hold concerns about the level of funding compared to that of frontline services and agrees it should be monitored to ensure the outcomes are being met. For that reason, it has rated the project as amber' at this stage.

FINDING 7.10

The Panel notes the need for the dedicated HR professional post in Children's Services,  however,  it  requires  further  information  about  the  outcomes  being achieved through this funding prior to making any further comments.

vulnerable children and  young people, through  additional posts dedicated  to responding to those  affected by domestic abuse

• Enhance the availability of advocacy support to key groups

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of Sustainable Workforce: Multi-agency specialist safeguarding training.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• A continuation of investment released from contingency funds for years 2017-2019 via P108/2018  to  enable  ongoing  increased  levels  of  training  across  the  children's workforce. Funding will enable the Safeguarding Partnership Board (SPB) to increase capacity to deliver more foundation training and increased specialist training on child sexual abuse, working together, new sexual offences legislation and the voice of the child.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel questioned whether the funding proposed within this business case was the same as outlined in project 1.6 (p.9 R.91/2019). It was explained that the funding set out in 1.6 related solely to the policy and legislative development for safeguarding (and the SPB), whereas this particular funding related to the costs associated with staff training to help enhance safeguarding and knowledge in safeguarding.[74]

• The Panel also questioned exactly what training would be offered as a result of this training and received the following response:

The training will and should vary according to need for example there may be a need to improve competence and capability of staff in assessing neglect or presenting evidence to court in court proceedings. The training provided will change over time. It will also be tiered in approach i.e. awareness raising, training from managers, supervision, skills-based training for practitioners.[75]

• It is clear that the training will be required to fit the needs of staff and this will inevitably come in a broad range of matters. For that reason, the Panel cannot give assurance over the amount of funding that has been allocated as the training needs may increase or decrease and in turn impact the funding requirement. It has therefore rated the project as amber' at this stage.  

FINDING 7.11

It is expected for the training offered by the Safeguarding Partnership Board to vary depending on the needs of staff. The Panel cannot, therefore, comment on the funding levels as need for training may increase or decrease and impact the funding requirement.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of Sustainable Workforce: On-Island social work training.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Funding to deliver a degree course in Jersey in partnership with the University of Sussex. In the longer term it is anticipated the course will fund itself but for first few years there is payment to Sussex University to support the course.

Panel Analysis

• The  Panel  examined  the  business  case  in  R.91/2019  and  noted  the  need  and arrangements for the on-island social work training. It is pleased that this has now started as of September 2019 with a current intake of 15 students from across the Channel Islands.[76] The Panel also noted the drop in funding over the four years of the Government Plan, which was explained by the Minister for Children and Housing during a public hearing:

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

This is fairly straightforward, but could you just outline and explain the reason for the drop of funding over the 4 years? I believe it is because of the funding at the beginning of the course, but I will let you elaborate.

The Minister for Children and Housing:

That is right. The degree is essentially a franchise of the University of Sussex and that is a good thing because they are highly regarded in this area, so we are pleased with that. It has only just started its first formal year of teaching, the first tranche to go through that; therefore, we are having to receive direct support from the University of Sussex in that beginning time. People within the organisation have not delivered it here before and it is just a matter of fact that over time that experience and that ability to deliver things will just become an ordinary part of what we do. We will not need to co-opt as much from the University of Sussex directly for that. So, this is not about reducing capacity.[77]

• The Panel is also pleased to note that students accessing this course are eligible for the full grant under the student finance scheme, on account of the course being listed on the critical skills list within Social Security.[78] The Panel questioned whether mature students wishing to access the course who were on income support would have their benefits protected:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Because this is a priority course and you may attract more mature students who may already have families, will their income support be protected, and they will be seen as working the 35 hours while they are on that course?

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

The present rules are the present rules around eligibility and I think the issue here is, because it is a priority skills course, then you are entitled to 100 per cent fee support. That is one of the crucial elements about the present system. There  are,  as  we  know,  disregards  relating  to  Social  Security,  but  the expectation anyway is that those are unlikely to kick in because it is a full-time course, so people are unlikely to find themselves in a form of employment that then starts to compromise their maintenance versus their income.[79]

• The Panel supports the need for this course and the associated funding.

building a more stable and  businesses, trade unions high-performing workforce  and key stakeholders

• Increase our support for

some of the most

vulnerable children and

young people, through

additional posts dedicated

to responding to those

affected by domestic abuse

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of Legislation: Children's policy and legislative programme.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• In accordance with the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry recommendation a Children's Legislation Framework Programme has been approved to be delivered in three waves. In 2020 this will include legislation to address "Children in Need", Care Leavers, corporate parenting, corporal punishment, family law, education law reform and young people not in education, employment or training Phase 1 and commencement of Phase 2 on regulation and inspection of further children's services, special guardianship and legislation for the safeguarding partnership board.

Panel Analysis

• Upon reviewing the business case within R.91/2019 for this project, the Panel raised concern that this appeared to be a double up of funding with projects identified in 2.1 (p.10 R.91/2019) and 2.4 (p.11 R.91/2019). The distinction between the projects was clarified by the Group Director for Policy during a public hearing:

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning:

As I said, the funding in 2.1, 2.4 and here in 3.6, 2.1 was to do with the legal side,  so  stick  with  2.4  and  3.6  is  the  policy  resource  to  do  the  policy development. The funding that we were discussing right at the beginning is all to do with the implementation of the policy, so that is the distinction.[80]

• The Panel noted that a programme board had been established to oversee the implementation of this work. It questioned how this board operated and how it was held accountable. The Group Director provided the following information during the public hearing:

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning:

So, this is the Children's Legislation Transformation Programme Board is just co-ordinating the officials on this, so I act as the Chair for it and the key for it in

terms of very early stage policy development is to make sure that we are getting operational voices in and overseeing the co-ordination across what is quite a complex programme of work. So, it is meant to be a co-ordination mechanism internally.

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

How is the board accountable?

Group Director, Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning:

We are directly accountable to the Minister and to the Children's Strategic Partnership Board as well. It is a co-ordination role, so then each piece of policy development still has to go through the processes that you would expect. So, papers will come to the Minister, then to Council of Ministers, and so on.[81]

• The  Panel  has  recently  published  a  report  examining  the  implementation  of recommendations five to eight of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) in which it examines the Children's Legislative Transformation Programme.[82] It will continue to hold the Minister to account for delivery of the programme and given the fact that the programme is at the early stages of development it has rated the project as amber'.

FINDING 7.12

The  Children's  Legislative  Transformation  Programme  is  intended  to  be implemented over three phases, the first of which has started in 2019. Given the length of time required, and breadth of legislation required, the Panel cannot give assurance over the level of funding applied to it at this stage.

Summary Report

The Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) has requested the following funds in respect of The Jersey Way.

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Projects to include public engagement, openness, transparency, checks and balances, accountability  and  confidence  in  Government,  administrative  redress  and administration of the justice system and further policy progress to support this.

Panel Analysis

• As stated in the previous section of this report, the Panel has conducted an in-depth review of the implementation of recommendations five to eight of the IJCI. The Jersey Way' related to recommendation seven of the inquiry report and the response has been examined by the Panel in this report. Given the crossover with this particular funding request, the Panel would draw attention to its report for analysis of the rationale for this funding.[83]

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Children's Voice: Develop a Looked After Children's Advocacy Worker (Children's Services).

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Funding for a Looked After Children Advocacy Worker post to address the failure to value  children  in  care,  mitigate  negative  effects  of  small  island  culture  and  its challenges.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel requested a job description relating to this role and was given the following information about the funding:

This is the continuation of the previous resources allocated through contingency funding subsequent to the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry in July 2017. The funding was originally identified and used to purchase participation and advocacy support from a third sector organisation. It is proposed that this money is now used towards funding the new Jersey Cares organisation.[84]

• The Panel notes that the funding will now be used to fund Jersey Cares, a new advocacy support organisation for looked after children and care leavers.[85] The Panel also questioned whether this particular role crossed over with the work of the Children's Rights Officer, however, given the funding is now being utilised for Jersey Cares there is a distinction between the work they would both be undertaking.[86]

• The Panel supports the introduction of this role but requires further details on the tasks it will undertake at this stage. It has therefore rated the project as amber'.

FINDING 7.13

The Panel supports the work of Jersey Cares and any work that helps strengthen advocacy support for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, however, further details are required as to how this funding will be applied by Jersey Cares.

RECOMMENDATION 7.2

The Minister for Children and Housing should provide further details to the Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel about the intended use of the funding for the advocacy worker by Jersey Cares. This should be provided by end of Q4 2020.

additional posts dedicated  to responding to those  affected by domestic abuse

• Enhance the availability of advocacy support to key groups

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the following funds in respect of the Children's Voice: Develop a new Children's Rights service plus MOMO App (Mind of Mine Own).

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• To employ a Children's Rights Officer and two Assistants to work with Looked After Children to ensure their rights are protected and facilitate complaints and comments and a small amount for a digital app for MOMO (Mind of My Own) to enable children to message staff.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel initially questioned how this work links to the funding request in 1.2 (p.8 R.91/2019). It was explained that:  

The offer for children in care links to this section as the Children's Rights Officer will be able to assist children and young people to ensure that the Minister provides the entitlement and offer. The Children's Rights Officer will also be able to lobby' at a senior management level on behalf of looked after children and care leavers.[87]

• The Panel notes that it is intended to recruit care experienced persons to fill the roles of Children's Rights Assistants. It questioned how this would be achieved inside an open and transparent recruitment process and received the following information:

Jersey will not be the first jurisdiction to engage care experienced individuals in similar roles so will use the learning gained elsewhere. Advertising will be done in the most appropriate way such as social media with support offered through recruitment processes and within the roles.[88]

• It has also been noted by the Panel that within the yearly funding allocations, £20,000 per annum is required to be invested in the Mind of My Own (MOMO) application that will be accessible by children and young people in care.[89] The Panel has been informed about the purpose of MOMO during previous briefings and discussions with the Minister and its purpose is to allow young people in care to report any issues or views they may have through the app.

• The Panel is supportive of the project; however, further details are required as to how the recruitment of the Children's Rights Assistants will be undertaken. For that reason, it has rated the project as amber' at this stage.

FINDING 7.14

The  Panel  is  supportive  of  the  development  of  a  Children's  Rights  service; however, further details are required as to how the Children's Rights Assistants will be recruited to support this service. It is noted that a Children's Rights Officer is currently being recruited.

RECOMMENDATION 7.3

The Minister for Children and Housing should update the Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel on the recruitment of the Children's Rights Officer and Children's Rights Assistant posts by the end of Q4 2019, and then subsequently at the end of every quarter until the posts are filled.

Summary Report

The Department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) has requested the  following  funds  in  respect  of  the  Inspection  of  Services:  Practice  improvement, performance and quality (Children's Social Work).

Additional Investment Required (£000)

Business case summary

• Funding  for  two  Practice  Improvement  Officers  to  lead  practice  development, assessing professional standards, develop training, case review and audit and to support external scrutiny such as Ofsted.

Panel Analysis

• The Panel reviewed the business case within R.91/2019 and raised questions with the Minister for Children and Housing in respect of the purpose of the two roles being requested through this funding. It received the following information:

Practice Improvement Officers are posts within children's services whose role is to support and develop improving practice. They have a role in ensuring that lessons from reviews, inspections and best practice elsewhere are learned and influence  practice  and  service  delivery  in  Jersey.  They  will  be  credible, experienced knowledgeable practitioners able to coach and direct practice to support improved outcomes. They will become an integral part of the quality assurance system in the service.[90]

• It was also noted that the posts would link in with any ongoing inspections by Ofsted and other external scrutiny bodies by preparing documents as well as practically leading action on any inspection findings.[91] The posts will sit at the same level as a Senior Practitioner (equivalent Civil Service Grade 11) and report direct to the Head of Quality in Children's Services. It is not expected for the roles to have any management responsibility.[92]

• The Panel has previously raised its concern about too much investment being made in back office roles and not in front line services. Until such time as the roles are in place it is difficult to say whether the intended impact will be achieved. The Panel has therefore rated this project as amber'.

FINDING 7.15

As the posts of Practice Improvement Officers have yet to be recruited to, the Panel cannot, at this stage, comment on whether the proposed funding will meet the intended objectives of the posts.

RECOMMENDATION 7.4

Once the Practice Improvement Officers are in post, the Minister for Children and Housing should provide initial quarterly updates which detail the impact and outcomes of the posts within Children's Services.